Is the Bible Literally True? No, of Course Not!

[Into the Night]

lol. You haven't mentally whipped anyone or anything. There is enough gray area in the topic that it's very likely that there will be no agreement. That's the beauty of the Bible - people can usually find most anything they want to believe in it because its written so poorly and inconsistently. I knew someone who SWORE that you didn't have to believe in the Christian God to get into Heaven and he found plenty of verses to support his belief. So, I'm not going to spend any more of my time discussing that specific topic because, again, it's open to translation and claims of "understanding" things differently. My mind hasn't changed and neither has yours.

If that means you check out of other discussions, that's your choice. I couldn't care less.

No, Sock. You don't get to change the Bible and still call it the Bible.

 

[Into the Night]

No dummy. The Christian tradition tells us Luke was a companion of Paul and Mark was a companion of Peter. John was written around 90 to 95 AD and the author couldn't have possibly known Jesus, who died 60 years before.

Mark wrote his gospel 15 to 20 years before Luke.

If the authors of the gospels all knew each other, they would have been able to compare notes and get the stories straight. The fact there are discrepancies is proof the gospels were authored independently by four different men. They are four independent literary sources.

They all knew each other, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

There doesn't have to be a single day. If one writer says Jesus died before the Passover meal and the other says he died after eating the Passover meal, you have claims that can't both be true.

No such claims, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

I said a leadership role, not the top leader.

Deacon is an official Church office subordinate to Bishop or priest, but above the laity. Phoebe is also called a patron of the church.

The fact that Paul trusted Phoebe to be his emissary to the Church of Rome clearly insinuates she had credibility and authority.

She was not a deacon, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

There are some good insights in the New Testament. Jesus was undoubtedly a good person with good ideas on how to treat your fellow man, however, there are no supernatural insights in the Bible, which one would expect there to be given that it was supposedly inspired by God. It was written by men who would be flabbergasted by something like a wheelbarrow and were a few generations from killing and burying their children under their homes for good luck.

Trivial fallacy, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

I’ve heard of Q, but not looked into it. I know nothing about the L and M. Kinda piqued my curiosity, though.

The thing on the divinity of Christ poses a real problem for the literalists. Bethlehem, of course, was tossed in to fulfill the prophecy of the OT. No reason for people from Nazereth to be there. Of course, the claim that it was for the census and that Joseph needed to be there because he had an ancestor from there 1000 years prior is laughable. The “out of Egypt” thing, as well.

The different versions of his deification are problematic. So which was it? 1) His resurrection 2) His baptism or 3) His birth.

The two gospels you referenced may well have been written a couple decades after his death, but those original manuscripts are missing. The first available ones are what, 100-200 years or so after that? So, who knows what changes were made in the stories during that time. The question is also WHERE were those gospels written? Most probably not in Galilee, so therefore not in any direct contact with those who knew Jesus.

Still, an interesting subject.

Laughing at scripture doesn't make it False, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

Oh, I have many more inconsistencies and errors to post... don't you worry. Of course there isn't in your mind. There was an entire book written to explain all of the inconsistencies in the NT. The most evangelical-type Christians virtually never admit errors or inconsistencies in the Bible because they literally believe it's the perfect word of God. You seem to be one of those. Whenever you get around to responding to the different birth narratives, there is a 100% chance you'll have an explanation for the obvious differences there, also. That's your interpretation. Again, racists can find what they want in the Bible. Antisemites can find what what they want in the Bible, etc. If I cared, I'd try to find the verses that he believed contradicted that. What does "through him" mean? To some people, and there are passages to support this, one need only be baptized and believe in God/Jesus to be saved. Others believe you have to "act" like a Christian to be saved. Nobody knows for sure, though everyone claims that their beliefs are right. Why do you think there are so many different variations of Christianity? Is it because Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists argree on everything? Nope! Yet, they all believe THEY have the "right" understanding of the Bible. Would have been nice if God had actually provided some specific, clear guidance. We don't even know if the books that were picked for the NT are all the right ones. Many were left out that were (allegedly) written by Peter, for example. And I detailed in post 61 how they do contradict each other. Why is your understanding right and mine wrong.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot claim something and deny it at the same time, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

You must not attend church or have any real knowledge of the Christian tradition.

You don't get to declare a 'Christian tradition', Sock.

A sargeant is in a leadership position even if they are subordinate to and have to take orders from lieutenants and captains.

Illiteracy: misspelling. Divisional fallacy, Sock.

I didn't say about women being THE leader, the top dog.

You cannot deny your own posts, Sock.

Deacons are frequently in charge of secular, logistical, administrative, and sometimes charitable functions of the church. They have authority and are holding an official ordained church office with real responsibility and authority.

She was not a deacon, Sock.

 

[ZenMode]

Misquoting the Bible won't work, Sock.

For example?

 

[Cypress]

You don't get to declare a 'Christian tradition', Sock.

Illiteracy: misspelling. Divisional fallacy, Sock.

You cannot deny your own posts, Sock.

She was not a deacon, Sock.

You gotta love the Rightwing 'Christian' posters who never even heard of the story of Paul and Phoebe in Epistle to the Romans prior to reading my post, and then immediately appoint themselves experts on the significance of Romans 16.

 

[ZenMode]

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot claim something and deny it at the same time, Sock.

Oh, but I can. I don't have to believe the Bible or Christians to know what the Bible says and the realities of Christians / Christianity.

 

[IBDaMann]

I will thank you in advance for admitting I was correct in stating Paul acknowledged women could have leadership positions in the Church

Once again, you take great pride in your quintessential ignorance. There was no such heretical indication that Phoebe was somehow in a leadership position.

Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea

Don't you think it's about time you hang it up?

 

[Cypress]

Once again, you take great pride in your quintessential ignorance. There was no such heretical indication that Phoebe was somehow in a leadership position.



Don't you think it's about time you hang it up?

The New Testament wasn't written in English. It was written in Greek.

You probably didn't know that.

Your cut and paste of English translations is not authoritative.

The highly respectable Encyclopedia Britannica confirms that in the original Greek, Phoebe was called a Deacon, a benefactor, and servant of the church.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Paul-the-Apostle/Mission

 

[Cypress]

I will thank you in advance for admitting I was correct in stating Paul acknowledged women could have leadership positions in the Church-->


Phoebe was a first-century Christian woman mentioned by the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, verses 16:1–2. A notable woman in the church of Cenchreae, she was trusted by Paul to deliver his letter to the Romans. Paul refers to her both as a "servant" or "deacon" and as a helper or patron of many. This is the only place in the New Testament where a woman is specifically referred to with these two distinctions. Paul introduces Phoebe as his emissary to the church in Rome and, because they are not acquainted with her, Paul provides them with her credentials.

"Phoebe of Cenchreae (fl. 1st c.)
Early Christian patron and leader who delivered St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans to the church at Rome c. 57 ce and is increasingly seen by scholars as having played a crucial role in creating the position of deaconess in the early church."

https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/...ranscripts-and-maps/phoebe-cenchreae-fl-1st-c

 

[ZenMode]

You absolutely have to know what the Bible reads in order to know what the Bible reads. You don't know what the Bible reads.

Of all the bonehead moves, you turn to Wikipedia for what the Bible reads. You have to be a total moron to treat a non-authoritative Marxist propaganda site that is awash in every imaginable error as your "go-to" source for anything.

Yes, you are a moron.

Never have I ever used Wikipedia as an informational source for the Bible.

What is, that I posted, that you disagree with or are you content to name-call 'cause you're mad?

 

[IBDaMann]

The New Testament wasn't written in English. It was written in Greek.

You were misquoting the English.

Your cut and paste of English translations is not authoritative.

I declare "The Bible" to be KJV. You didn't ask about the original manuscripts of the Καινή Διαθήκη which you were not quoting.

The highly respectable Encyclopedia Britannica confirms that in the original Greek, Phoebe was called a Deacon

That's the giveaway that you are getting it wrong. A "deacon" is a servant or helper, and is specifically designates non-clergy and non-leaders of the church.

Say it with me ... " a helper."

In the Catholic church, a deacon is a highly glorified altar boy, i.e. a helper.

Συνίστημι δὲ ὑμῖν Φοίβην τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡμῶν, οὖσαν διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς

The best translation of διάκονον in this case is "servant."

 

[IBDaMann]

Never have I ever used Wikipedia as an informational source for the Bible. What is, that I posted, that you disagree with or are you content to name-call 'cause you're mad?

My bad. I owe you an apology. I was tracing back Cypress' chain when I came upon yours thinking it was his. That's why I posted the Cypress meme. Cypress is misquoting the Bible to be offensive.

I was rushing and not paying close attention and I screwed that up. You have my genuine apologies. I will try harder next time.

 

[ZenMode]

My bad. I owe you an apology. I was tracing back Cypress' chain when I came upon yours thinking it was his. That's why I posted the Cypress meme. Cypress is misquoting the Bible to be offensive.

I was rushing and not paying close attention and I screwed that up. You have my genuine apologies. I will try harder next time.

No problem. I appreciate the acknowledgment and honesty.

 

[Cypress]

You were misquoting the English.


I declare "The Bible" to be KJV. You didn't ask about the original manuscripts of the Καινή Διαθήκη which you were not quoting.


That's the giveaway that you are getting it wrong. A "deacon" is a servant or helper, and is specifically designates non-clergy and non-leaders of the church.

Say it with me ... " a helper."

In the Catholic church, a deacon is a highly glorified altar boy, i.e. a helper.


The best translation of διάκονον in this case is "servant."

^^^ Didn't have the slightest clue who Phoebe was until after reading my posts, and then immediately appointed himself expert on Epistles to the Romans

I love how I get you to start frantically Googling topics you didn't know anything about before me

KJV is a 500 year old English translation.

Linguistics and the art of translation have dramatically improved in the last 500 years.

You don't seem to be aware of that.

And newer translations like NIV correctly identify Phoebe as a Deacon in the church, which in the first century historical context meant she was a high ranking Christian designated to work with the elders in a variety of ways.

If she was just a maidservant baking cookies for the Sunday liturgy Paul would have not trusted her to be his emissary to the Church in Rome, which was an extremely important project for Paul.

 

[IBDaMann]

Didn't have the slightest clue who Phoebe was until after reading my posts, and then immediately appointed himself expert on Epistles to the Romans

I had read the Bible, cover to cover, several times before you were born. You're the one who is only now lifting someone's activist concepts off the internet.

KJV is a 500 year old English translation.

... and it goes to show that "servant" is the best English translation.

Linguistics and the art of translation have dramatically improved in the last 500 years

Cultures have evolved another 500 years over the last 500 years, and meanings have changed more dramatically over the last 500 years than over any other 500 year period.

... and newer translations like NIV correctly identify Phoebe as a Deacon in the church

Nope. Newer mistranslations incorrectly attempt to apply literal translations to false cognates. In ancient Greek, a "deacon" was a servant. In modern English, a "deacon" is a title of elevated standing. In Prometheus, the "deacon" was a higher level of evolution. It is erroneous to translate the ancient Greek word for "servant" to the modern English title of Deacon. Hence the 500-years-more-correct usage of "servant" in KJV is what you should use.

Phoebe had no rank in the church.